Interesting to see other councils are having issue’s with party politics riding rough shot over the real purpose of local government and the amenity it should provide, to its residents and ratepayers
There seems to be coordinate efforts made by party politics to take over local government to suit their own political agendas and to severe the community with services they should have and insert the ideology on these local governments.
The real issue here is how they raise rates to us to pay for their ideologies, bad enough we have state and federal government wasting our money, now we have to fund the waste and excesses of local government too.
Great piece by John Dowson, straight to the point kicking off with what a waste of rate payer’s money the council ad piece was wrapped around the Fremantle Herald. Its only point was to be self serving.
Cutting to the chase of the Mayors claim of no politics on council, where anyone who watches or takes interest in the CoF, politics is all you can see. Does the Mayor seriously expect anyone to believe that statement.
It seems Fremantle is not the only place state and federal politics are driving councils.
Cutting to John’s passion the heritage in Fremantle. Anyone questioning the councils lack of care just has to go and stand in front of the our town Hall and see holes in the roofing and plumbing sections, to see the lack of care and respect our town hall has had over the last 10 years. Look up just past the entrance an RHS of the town hall and see bits just waiting to fall off. Their own reports say if the restoration/maintenance work is not done by next winter the damage could be irreparable. Its not even safe to use the flag poles on its roof.
Then this weeks Herald, another great piece for a thinking allowed NO MORE STATUS QUO bringing together months of issues right through to the 2029 vision the council had, which lacked the real input left by the community.
Sadly community input is only taken into count of if it follows our council group think or ideologies. Which leaves Fremantle’s future with a woeful forecast, when taking into account the recent survey statistics it’s even more worrying. From this report it shows residents are far from happy and at some of its lowest level in this surveys history
You may read on other blogs statements like this but you need to always go to the original source and see what was actually stated.
JOHN DOWSON: The council’s business plan for King’s Square states, “the project derives a positive net present value to the city (enhancing community wealth)…”.However, independent assessments claim $30 million of community wealth is actually being destroyed.
John Dowson actually stated “However, independent assessments claim $30 million of community wealth is actually being destroyed. Former mayor Tagliaferri called the deal with developer Sirona “crazy” and warned of a Freo Inc-style outcome. “
Till now these questions remain unanswered, with council hiding behind secret council meetings called with out proper agendas being posted, but don’t worry this is the council that believes in transparency? This is why we cant see the reports used to justify their $30 million gamble with our funds and assets. The best yet we saw was the Mayors Brad Pettitts & CEO’s thinking allowed which attempted to belittle the resident who raised questions on this Kings Square business promo piece.
Seriously the council should play back the audio of what they have said at council meetings, so they can hear how ridiculously funny some of their statements are.
A branded beer party on the beach, fenced in, is not about a massive piss up but people who are going to enjoy a few responsibly drunk beers and to partake of the fine cuisine and enjoy the scintillating repartee of their fellow gourmands? Almost as good as freo having the best public toilets in the world.
There’s taking the piss and there’s taking the piss, if you want to approve a piss up on the beach, then do it for what it is, don’t try to justify it with a whole pile of BS rhetoric.
Comparing, not approving a beach party with prohibition is just crap, no one is suggesting prohibition just not to allow a massive beer advertisement/glorification on the beach.
Comparing a branded beer festival as having no impact, as children regularly walk past bars with a sign advertising a particular brand, that’s comparable? why did government ban cigarettes from advertising, according to research widely accepted, it has had a significant impact on lower smoking levels?
Could we compare the whole alcohol issue with cigarette advertising where according to the progressive intelligentsia, Australia is leading the world. If advertising did not attract people to the product, would companies spend Billions on it each year?
I was surprised after listening over the last year or so hear to some Councillors talk about how council should spend more funds on community safety directed to stopping domestic violence,then to suddenly back-flip and support the beach piss up.
Personally I would have rather seen the alcohol issue get the cigarette attention 1st, not much domestic violence based around a couple of durries, or a one punch hit, killing from chain smoking. Making my point of view quite funny as I have never smoked but do drink and possibly been to more party places around the globe than anyone on council.
Even funnier a Councillor stating how responsibly all the fenced ticketed events were run as there is no issues with drunk people falling over each other, or god forbid anything worse. I’m not sure if they attend these events or how good their cognitive functions are the next day, but I generally leave these events by 4pm or 5pm, as by then the drunks are well and truly in flight, with vomit, taking the public leak on the tent etc are all in full swing, perhaps this year I will take some vids to prove the point.
The Mccusker centre has written to the COF questioning the event going ahead, this was swept aside quicker than a community consultation doc, as it appears our Councillors have a better understanding of the effects of alcohol on our community than the McCusker Centre.
The aim of the McCusker Centre is to reduce the levels of drinking, harmful drinking and alcohol problems among young people.
Key objectives of the McCusker Centre include raising awareness of:
The levels of harmful drinking and harm from alcohol among young people;
The actions we know can be effective in preventing harm from alcohol; and
The need for action without delay.
The McCusker Centre will also work to stimulate and inform community discussion and debate about alcohol issues.
Strangely I didn’t find on their site that “huge fenced in branded beer beach parties” as part of the alcohol mitigation program?
Looks like McCusker centre is left with egg on its face as a couple of weeks ago COF was a finalist for one of their awards, now COF simply dismisses their concerns, oh dear?
To be fair to the Councillors, 2 did vote against the event, Massie and Strachen. The speed the Mayor brush past the McCuker Centres letter, I’m not sure why he even bothered bringing it up, or perhaps it’s just because Councillor Massie raised the issue how inconsiderate? The smarter Councillors said nothing on the issue or just didn’t turn up for the meeting.
We shan’t mention this event flies in the face of the COF policy on alcohol and its own alcohol accord., oh yes even funnier a Councillor actually brought the small bar issue into this justification, emmm, 120 people comparable to 5000, sounds right?
Me I have no problem with people drinking, but the first step is also being honest about it, what I saw tonight left me in doubt of the sincerity of our council with the lame weak ass justifications for this event. I wonder if they will get any free tickets?
On the plus side at least the organizer is actually paying for fencing our public space this time and will supply a deposit to ensure clean up is done. I think the real justification of the event comes from the fact event will supply bike racks and it may have a bus running from town. The freo stamp of approval!
What a well-run meeting by the North Fremantle Community great job by Gerry MacGill, a nice civil community Q&A. Well done to the crowd that attended too.
But Whoa what a difference a couple of weeks makes. I went to the Victoria Hall meeting with Peter Newman as the headline name for the night, all on the Perth Freight Link (PFL). Last night I went to the Nth Fremantle community meeting on the PFL impact especially focused on Nth Freo. Here Peter Newman was again a headline draw card with the Premier Colin Barnett giving the governments opinion, as the local member. But the sting was really not in his presentation in Nth Freo as it was in Victoria Hall. Side note at vic hall when the council wants a crowd they put one buffet, no need at Nth Freo.
Great to see the Premier make time to speak to his electorate.
What surprised me was the whole CUSP report was all front and centre at Victoria Hall, the Mayor sprouting its contents and not surprising as it cost the rate payers $20,000. At Nth Freo it barely rated a mention, Peter Newman spent as much time talking about his new book as he did the CUSP report that our council dropped $20 k on.
In fact I think the City of Kwinana’s new Indian Ocean Gateway document got more attention than the CUSP report, that Fremantle council paid $20,000 for. Good to see at least one council driving for investment, jobs, infrastructure and developments in the city, well done Kniwana.
So I wonder what we the rate payer paid for in the CUSP report as I expected Prof Newman would be using it to give the Premier both barrels, instead they spent the most of the night agreeing with each other. Peter Newman put forward of course the inter-nodal issue which I believe various governments have been talking about for years with Lat 32.
Peter Newman could not even definitely say the Roe 8 was not needed for the outer harbour system as it’s in the plans for the Lat 32.
His point was the Roe 8 went to the wrong port, which sounds like an endorsement for the Roe 8 to be built. Yet he no solution for Fremantle’s coming years of traffic issues as the current ports needs to operate for at least the next 20-30 years till it gets to the cap and transition that Peter and Colin agreed on. Quite a surprise from the Victoria Hall presentation? It was agreed by both speakers that Fremantle’s Port could double in container volume over the next 10 years to about 1.4 million containers, yet Peter Newman had no solution for how to handle the increase of containers Fremantle will have until the Outer Harbour is finally operational.
So one question that needs answering is that if PFL is not built, what is the container solution for Fremantle as even Peter Newman believes the maximum achievable container on rail will be just over 30%. Leaving 70% of container movements to go by truck.
Good to see someone bring up the emission control regulations from Euro 5&6 for diesel engines and Peter Newman admitted that truck emissions dropped drastically over the years with new technology and believed that trucks would go to gas over the coming years removing the diesel emission issue. California is also moving into trucks running on Hydrogen also cutting out truck emissions as an issue. We could also bring in the 80/20 diesel blends which would have an immediate reduction on emissions.
Strangely the Mayor was very quiet at the meeting not even a question?
It was also interesting to see the 2 speakers agree that WA was the best performer for freight on rail and they both agreed, even if the Outer Harbour is built without massive investment in the inter-nodal systems the rail volume would still not increase much past 30% which is the current target of the Inner Harbour.
It was good to see the Premier so clearly state the Roe 9 part is still under evaluation and needs lots of work before the final route is chosen. While good that the decision will get public debate, sucks for those who live on the proposed routes as they will be left hanging in limbo till a decision is made.
I think the argument that the Roe 8 will bring more trucks to Fremantle is done, it’s only more containers that will bring more trucks to fremantle, which will still come whether PFL is built or not. Something needs to be built to handle the next decades of increasing trucks to the Port and the ever increasing smaller vehicles on the road around Fremantle.
Our council has blindly followed the Barnett governments in fill plan while not getting any infrastructure to handle the increased density, population and the cars they bring. Last night the Premier said about 90% of houses have 1 car and over 50% have two. I think those figures are from a census some time back as I drive around my suburb the number of cars in front of one house is more than that. Just think our Mayor Brad has 2 cars himself.
Time for council to stand up for our amenity and tell the government no more infill or density increases till we start to see the necessary infrastructure to deal with it, PT or better roads I don’t mind which I just want to see some guarantees of delivery. Of course that also means when the government tries to put some in place it helps for the council not to say no.
So I go back to my “Thinking Allowed OPEN MINDS” where I called for public debate on this issue. If the 2nd leg of PFL Roe 9 goes ahead, now is the time for people to say what we need from this road/tunnel, to make our suburbs more livable, as truck free and safe as we can make it.